CCPR/C/125/D/2923/2016 that the author was interviewed only once, but observes that this does not affect any of the arguments in its previous observations. The State party draws attention to the relevant guidelines of the European Asylum Support Office, according to which applicants must be given the opportunity to answer any questions concerning their flight and other circumstances during the asylum interview. In line with that, the author was asked openended and disguised questions, including questions regarding his health condition. Nevertheless, the author never invoked any of his claims alleged in the communication. The State party emphasizes that the author did not mention his allegedly poor health condition (asthma and post-traumatic stress disorder) in spite of the direct questions posed to him on this issue; the failure to detect such conditions cannot therefore be attributed to the asylum authority. Instead, such answers confirm that the author was attempting to prevent the authority from implementing its decision on his transfer. 6.4 In light of the above, the State party objects to the author’s submission that the asylum authority could have identified his vulnerability. It also claims that when the conditions for the Dublin procedure are met, the Immigration and Asylum Office is obliged to act accordingly. The asylum authority would have infringed the law, had it ignored its obligations as established by the European Union. 6.5 Concerning the author’s claim that he was never properly informed about the Dublin procedure, the State party draws attention to the complaint, in which the author indicates that he was in possession of an information document on the Hungarian asylum procedure. The two statements are contradictory. The author also had the right to ask further questions concerning the written and oral information with which he was provided. Regarding followup questions, the author, after being informed, was asked to sign the information sheet, attesting that he had received a copy of the information sheet, that he had taken note of its contents and that he did not wish to comment on it. The fact that the author did not wish to ask further questions or make any comments cannot be regarded as the Office’s failure. The author’s reasoning and conclusions cannot be regarded as well founded. 6.6 In his appeal, the author had the opportunity to state the reasons for which Bulgaria should not be regarded as a safe country in his case. The author’s claim that the review procedure of the Metropolitan Court decision is ineffective should be considered as illfounded. During the procedure, the court examines all the relevant documents as its disposal and, if needed, conducts an individual assessment on whether the Dublin transfer would violate any international, European Union or internal legal provisions. 6.7 The State party emphasizes that once a European Union member State’s responsibility for examining the application for international protection is determined and the individual circumstances of the case do not require the asylum authority to act differently, the authority has no further obligations to conduct an individualized assessment and must ensure the enforcement of the decision on transfer. Should a request for review not contain any new circumstances (based on which the case would necessitate a different outcome), the competent court upholds the decision of the asylum authority. Since this is what happened in the present case, the decision of the Metropolitan Court must be regarded as reasonable and well founded. 6.8 In addition, the State party affirms that there is no European Union decision according to which Bulgaria could not be considered as a safe country. Therefore, transfers to Bulgaria are regularly implemented by member States under the Dublin III Regulation. It also recalls that the author did not put forward any arguments, either during the personal interview and the asylum procedure or during the review procedure, claiming that Bulgaria was not a safe country in his case, which would have been essential for the Hungarian authorities to reach a different outcome in their decision. 6.9 Since the circumstances that would substantiate the alleged violation of the author’s rights were mentioned only in the communication submitted to the Committee, the State party questions the genuineness of those allegations. It concludes that Hungary cannot be made responsible for the author’s failure to inform the authorities about the circumstances he referred to in his complaint, be these allegations true or false. In light of the above, the State party is of the view that the alleged violations of the Covenant are not well founded, and the complaint should therefore be declared inadmissible. 8 GE.19-08969